Let's Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family (and/or "Conciliation") Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

Alert: Ready or Not, An 18,000-word, Multi-Stream, Detail-and-Documentation-filled Post is Next, Imminent, Upcoming and So Forth…

with one comment

[Incidentally, this one is about 10,000 words.  I had some things to say, and show.]

“Things happen” when one’s development editor, copyeditor, news editor, lay-out person, the person getting the publication schedules and the marketing department head in charge of soliciting advertising and subscription revenues, in short, everyone but the editor in chief are is  all out on strike and the place is being run by enthusiastic, under-paid freelancers and interns. Some things which should happen more regularly, like publishing that issue, also don’t happen.

NY Sec of State Bus Entity Search Results for IBT Media (showing current CEO)

NY Sec. of State Bus. Entity Search Results for IBT Media (showing current CEO).  This is the NY Div of Corporations Entity Search Site (must use a “Captcha” to prove you’re a human.  Or other animate, computer-fluent  being who can respond to visual cues with the proper keyboarding, or voice-assisted keyboarding action).

Bottom half of IBT Media Inc NY Corp Div filing showing only 2006 start date + 1000 issues of stock (no par value). And two prior names. Click to read larger versionBottom half of IBT Media Inc NY Corp Div filing showing only 2006 start date + 1000 issues of stock (no par value). And two prior names. Click to read larger version


Or, as in my situation, where none of the above positions exist except all of them rolled into one function, position that is, person (me), similar things can and do (or, do not) happen.  Publication schedules are pushed back while stories are being developed.


This is a Forbes article dated August 3, 2013 by Jeff Bercovici


When there is no publication entity with print advertising or newsletter subscription revenues, or in fact ANYTHING generating ANY revenue, the tendency is to follow one’s longest suits (which in my case is identifying and following the investigative leads surrounding general themes, not editing, formatting, and getting them out in sufficiently NOT in depth format, or serial form such that they come out on pre-determined schedule) sometimes overrides other instincts (if they even exist here) that a more self-preserving, subscription/advertising-based revenue-generating, not to mention crowd-pleasing business instinct would enforce as the standard operating practice.

A revenue source or sponsor is more administrative overhead, but also more production capacity.

Or, if this wordpress-based on-line platform (blog) had a previously established sponsor — whether government (like this one, although it ends in *.org), or tax-exempt foundation (like this one), or a private university (like this one) or an entire corporation existing as its own entity — but supported by, it seems, a religion (like this one*** and see next image, not to mention the ones just above), it would be spitting out posts more regularly

***Recent info says IBT Media bought Newsweek in 2013 and are already laying off their own staff (shared in common or rotating basis? with Olivet University) and talking about selling off Newsweek) — then resources could be drawn from those places to support a news, editorial and marketing staff, before laying them off when things don’t go as planned:

(viewed early Feb. 2017) IBT Media (who runs this) is a NY Corporation filed only in 2006; articles have been written on its other affiliations by Mother Jones, New York Post, BusinessInsider.com, and other on-lines. I also looked up some of the related filings and tax-exempt entities (Olivet University actually is showing under two different EIN#s in California...)

(viewed early Feb. 2017) IBT Media (who runs this) is a NY Corporation filed only in 2006; articles have been written on its other affiliations by Mother Jones, New York Post, BusinessInsider.com, and other on-lines. I also looked up some of the related filings and tax-exempt entities (Olivet University actually is showing under two different EIN#s in California…)

(look up the article for active links. The screenshot is actually from another in-the-works post).

(look up the article for active links. The screenshot is actually from another in-the-works post)


However you want to view it, I’m going to handle an overloaded but quite current, relevant, and I believe nevertheless fascinating post I’ve been working on for well over a week, one which just won’t stop sprouting new tendrils on the top, and broader, deeper roots on the bottom, by simply publishing the thing, under this title:

Post title:  How Many Unified City/County Governments are there, and Since When, and Why?  Here’s One (Wyandotte County|KCK, since 1997)

If this were baseball, and no home run was imminent, with bases loaded, I might punt.  If it were football and the first down wasn’t about to happen but potential for a field goal existed (and assuming there were actually a team), I’d kick.  Whatever the analogy was, I want to ditch the burden of concern about it NEVER being (a) complete enough to my satisfaction AND (simultaneously) (b) all those images lined up properly and connections between the main theme and off-shoots clear enough and © the whole thing being under 18,000 words and staying there (or shorter) until it really was publication-ready, my standards (don’t laugh!  I have them!).

So this post is for a preview of some of the topics in the upcoming, imminent 18,000-worder.  I’ve also liberally sprinkled postings (images, articles) regarding the strange “The International Business Times, Inc.” (former name) now going by “IBT Media Inc.” and some thoughts and commentary for these times on —  why should we think that colonization, racism and sexism somehow went away last century, and isn’t happening to the United States?

In quoting an older and very well-written source on this, I found new information about how “H-Net: Humanities and Social Services On-Line” sponsored? or at least hosted by a public university (Michigan State U., East Lansing) is still up soliciting funds, filing tax returns, but missed filing its annual report for the State of Michigan 2014, 2015 and 2016 until (just recently) finally getting administratively dissolved– while the receipts keep coming in.

Such an interesting world we live in, and while I’m sure many are emotionally processing losing (or winning) in the recent US Presidential election, and the on-line media and cable TV outlets, plus main print publications, are featuring it daily (no doubt this is good for sales), it’s also good to remind ourselves who owns them, and who owned them five years earlier, ten years earlier, and what the wealth that bought them represents.  Some of which my imminent post delved into also.

After all — subscriptions, advertising revenue, or sponsors all still feed into what gets published.

I’ve also scattered through it some references to the interesting religious-business-university (sic) outfit founded on a charismatic leader who says he parted from his early background in the Unification Church, but seems to have brought along SOME of its theology (rumors he’s the second Christ were allowed), some Scientology-like qualities (suing the critics into silence, almost), and some of its business practices too — towards both the workers, and the multiple organizations pumping up a public media presence which, apparently, wasn’t exactly self-sufficient.

I hope you enjoy the variety of information and insights on this post, as I’m sure you will on the next one also.  As ever, I like to post the images (annotated and otherwise) to go with the stories, which also affects speed of output — but I believe adding to the quality and credibility.  Also, there are plenty of quotes, all of which needs to be tweaked for layout and size.

Case in point:  Even when there has been paid staff, sometimes they get ditched.  For example:

Sometimes even established publications have to ditch operations, or underpaid staff.  IBT Media (which now owns Newsweek, at last check) had to.  Being digital itself, its ex-staffers certainly knew how to publicize the problems:

Staffers Slam IBT over Ties to Christian University 8/2/2016 in New York Post, by Keith J. Kelly.

Laid-off staffers of Newsweek parent IBT Media — who last week started a Twitter campaign to protest skimpy severance payouts — are also focusing renewed attention on the ties between the struggling media company and a California evangelical Christian university run by Korean cleric David Jang . [italics added]

Jang started Olivet University in San Francisco in 2004, and many of IBT’s executives still have close ties to it.  Angry staffers tweeting under #IBTWTF reported that, in 2014, the company made a $1.3 million payment to Olivet.

…The ties between school and company are deep.

Tracy Davis is Olivet’s president. Her husband, IBT Chief Content Officer and co-founder Johnathan Davis , is a former director of Olivet’s School of Journalism, which encourages students to push their Christian values in journalism.

Etienne Uzac, the other co-founder and now chairman of IBT, is Olivet’s former treasurer.

You’d think people would figure out to innoculate themselves from dealings with a religious (cult-like) affiliated university publication by looking at some of its tax returns, or the related entities’ tax returns.  (Etienne even had some background with the London School of Economics…)  I just did, and do they ever look odd…. Of course, that may be hard to do while working on starvation pay, grueling deadlines (if that was the case) and being encouraged (reminds me of Huffington Post and its treatment of staffers who were expected to attend, and/or support Arianna’s “New Age” spiritual guru, or spiritual guru’s seminars, etc. ….)

Here are some tax returns, and a few images….so far…

Total results: 3Search Again.

(Note: the California “Exempt-Active” RCT EIN# for Olivet University (SF address) shows as 113712138, matching California Entity #C2579533.  IRS Exempt Organization Check recognized the number in the table below, not the other one.  Then again, if religious- exempt, that also may explain why. THIS EIN# and filing, on the other hand, does NOT show up on the State Charitable Trust Registry — possibly because it’s a school (?).  Anyhow, look at the rapid acquisition of assets, and then consider (with some of the images) just how this might be happening.

Olivet University CA 2015 990 42 $34,800,783.00 20-0909475
Olivet University CA 2014 990 27 $23,403,935.00 20-0909475
Olivet University CA 2013 990 24 $8,571,929.00 20-0909475

You might also be interested in “Ken Smith on the David Jang Controversy” Jan 23 at blog “Internet Monk” which, its website explains, was run until he died by Michael Spencer, but is continued now by his request and his friend, “Chaplain Mike” who I gather (from the sidebar) has some interest in things Anglican.  Ken Smith (as a guest blogger here) writes how Olivet University in SF took over their “Bethany University” and as concerned alumni, they began to look into who was bailing it out of its financial troubles. (FYI, that’s also a repeating theme in the Unification church involvement in right-wing American Christianity).

Note from CM: Ken Smith is an independent journalist from Washington state who was gracious enough to send us a post on a subject we thought might be of interest to iMonk readers. In September 2012, he teamed up with Ted Olsen at Christianity Today to publish two articles on what they called “The Second Coming Christ Controversy.” Here are the links to those articles:

Ken has also written about the subject of these articles, David Jang, on his blog: Confessions of a Would-Be Theologian. I’m grateful for this update for our readers. Thanks also to Dan Jepsen, who contacted Ken and facilitated getting today’s post for IM. (that’s the blog administrator’s intro…)

… those concerned quickly ran into conflicting assessments of who was this group, and David Jang.   I find it distressing, if not a little painful, to witness Christians at the Crossroads over what is and is not orthodox, looking for authoritative endorsements.  I already went to the tax returns, the filings, which are clearly “unorthodox” (some more below), let alone any theology:

Those alumni who still felt close to the school were naturally curious about Bethany’s new owners, and a few of us started digging around. One person described them as “a bunch of rich Korean Pentecostals,” and that naturally piqued our interest. How many of those are there in the world?

The school’s website was helpful. Olivet University, we read, was associated with the Evangelical Assembly of Presbyterian Churches, and was founded in 2000 by a man named David Jang, a Korean pastor and theologian. OK, fine. But who is David Jang? Back to Google.

This is where it all turned unexpected. Because the first thing we turned up was some Japanese blog dedicated to proving that David Jang was the leader of a dangerous cult whose members believed he was some sort of “Second Coming Christ”. And then another Japanese blog dedicated to proving that the author of the first blog was himself a dangerous nut-job…

…Here comes the rationalization:

 But it was clear there wasn’t really any chance that the “Second Coming Christ” accusations could be true. After all, Olivet’s denomination, the EAPC, was a member of the World Evangelical Alliance, a reputable organization that in one form or another went back to the mid 1800’s. Olivet’s president, William Wagner, was a lifelong Southern Baptist missionary, and was once even a candidate for president of the SBC. I even tracked down and talked to the pastor at one of their churches, Paul de Vries, a former professor of ethics at Wheaton. You simply don’t get those kinds of endorsements unless you’re reasonably orthodox.

And that was a good thing. Because we quickly learned that the Christian Postowned and operated by members of Jang’s community, was perhaps the world’s largest Christian news website, with the formidably Baptist Richard Land as its executive editor. The International Business Times, also owned and operated by members of Jang’s community, was an equally large and popular secular news property. And lots of other popular Christian websites and organizations – Apostolos Campus MinistriesYoung Disciples of JesusBreathecastDiakonosEcumenical NewsGospel Herald, the Holy Bible SocietyChristian Today (not Christianity Today) – as well as secular websites and companies – VeremediaVeritas Legal SocietyStevens BooksYibada – were also owned and controlled by members of Jang’s community.

The Christian Post Leadership page reminds me of just how much Christian Leadership in America HAS been and will probably continue being “for sale,” particularly when one campus goes under and there’s money around to bail it out.. (remembering Liberty University, Jerry Falwell, and Sun Myung Moon).  Regardless of the theology (i.e. if you’re not concerned deeply about the divinity of Christ or his earthly representatives), now is not a good time to just “forget” the influence of the international, money-laundering, tax-evading, mass-marriage-making cult (or, religion) famous in the 1970s and 1980s.

One of its True Parents died Sept. 2012 (ironically, around the time of this Christianity Today article the guest blogger is speaking about), but perhaps a philosophical “nephew” got started here, in the 1990s, and is following the usual Christian path — start a college and promote the theology, get accredited, start some major media, and persuades students, their wives, and alumni to sacrifice (i.e., work as volunteers or for below minimum wage, etc.) to sustain the impression of financial viability of one or more of the communications organs of the cult (or, religion).

CP leadership images (of several I recognize), there’s a Billy Graham descendant among them.  I have blogged at least two of these gentlemen (mostly).  However, the most famous names (except, apparently “Land” are not listed as staff, but “Senior Advisory Editors.”  For those listed as actual, looks like, employed editors, there are only a few.

(This image doesn’t show Managing Editor John Grano, or Publisher (looks like quite a young man), or their main religious clout leadership, Richard Land.  It shows the last three editors before one gets to “Senior Advisory.”  Two live in Washington, D.C., and their US Editor (Melissa Barnhart) I see lives in Texas:


Their Political editor (working there since 2011) only got his PhD from UFlorida Gainesville in 2006, and from then until 2011 seems to have been bouncing around (a year here, two years there) on mostly South of the Bible Belt universities (until one in Marietta Ohio), and managed to get a Princeton reference in there — but working, two months, for a  “Junior Statesman Foundation” IN Princeton, and not the University itself.  The work experience thus is Texas, South Carolina, Georgia, and lastly (one year only) Ohio, before joining Christian Post.

Napp Nazworth also has a google-based resume (Current to 2014 only) in somewhat strange format — not for 8X11 printing, obviously).  This is from the post-PhD Work part: (http://www.nappnazworth.com/#my-resume)

Visiting Assistant Professor.  Marietta College, Marietta, Ohio.  Fall 2009—Spring 2010.

Lecturer.  University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.  Fall 2008—Spring 2009.  Taught American Political Parties, Electoral Behavior, Religion and Politics, and Legislative Politics.

AP Government Instructor.  Junior Statesmen Foundation.  Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.  June—July 2008.

Assistant Professor.  Charleston Southern University, Charleston, South Carolina. Fall 2007—Spring 2008.  Taught American Government, State and Local Government, Congress, Parties and Interest Groups, Research Methods, Religion and Politics, and an independent study in Public Policy.

Visiting Professor of Political Science.  Texas A&M University—Corpus Christi, Corpus Christi, Texas.  Fall 2005—Summer 2007.  Taught American Government, Religion and PoliticsLegislative Process, State and Local Politics, The Constitution and Federalism, The Presidency and Parties and Interest Groups.

Lecturer in Political Science.  Trinity Valley Community College, Athens, Texas.  Summer 2005.  Taught two sections of American and Texas Constitutions and three sections of American and Texas Government.

Lecturer in Political Science.  University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, Texas.  Fall 2004—Spring 2005.  Taught two sections of Congress and Legislation and American Government in the Fall.  Taught American Government, Religion and Politics and a graduate level Research Methods class in the Spring.

Here are the top 3 Christian Post leadership listed, this time I annotated the image:


Click here for the annotations, and/or at the main link if you want to read all the Leadership/Ed. Staff profiles at Christian Post. (annotations updated slightly 2-6-2017).

…Back to the “Internet Monk” quotation by guest blogger Ken Smith, who wrote (with a Ted Oleson) a Christianity Today article on these things. Then the Search-and-destroy critics tactics (reminds me also of Scientology):

Still, there were things about Olivet that bothered me – you can be as big and orthodox as you like and still have problems – and I wrote about those things on my blog. And then I got the chance to write about Olivet threatening to sue me because of that post, and the resulting kerfuffle led to severalmoreposts over the ensuing months. By the spring of 2012, though, I was ready to let the thing drop.

And the blogger concludes, for now, about the media empire and insertion of membership into positions of authority.  I skipped the part about Jang’s early (until 1992) involvement in the Unification Church, and that the group also does arranged marriages, etc.

In a world with Boko Haram and Aum Shinrikyo, who cares about yet another merely petulant Korean Messiah?

I think part of the answer is that Jang’s community punches above its weight. Jang’s followers, regardless of their numbers, are an immensely deep resource pool, and he has put them very effectively to work on his extensive media properties.

But more than that, Jang’s community desperately wants to integrate themselves into American Evangelicalism. To this end, Jang has worked very hard to recruit respectable Evangelical sponsors. William Wagner as the President of Olivet University. Richard Land as the executive editor of the Christian Post, and Will Graham and Joel Hunter and lots of others as vague “Senior Editorial Advisers”. The blessing of Ralph Winter for Olivet’s library. A former editor of Christianity Today teaching theology at Olivet University. And lots more.

Alongside these external recruits, Jang has also worked to place his own people in positions of influence. Jang himself is on the board of the World Evangelical Alliance, and many – maybe even a majority – of the staff of the WEA are members of Jang’s community. Walker Tzeng, one of Jang’s senior leaders, is on the board of the Association for Biblical Higher Education (the standard accrediting organization for US Bible colleges), as well as the board of the National Association of Evangelicals. Nor is this influence limited to the US. When I once called the Christian Council of Korea, the Korean equivalent of the NAE, I was immediately handed off to a member of Jang’s community, who insisted, with growing implausibility, that every Asian investigation of Jang had cleared him, completely, no, really, they did. (Draw your own conclusions about how independent the CCK remains.)

Here’s another way to put it. A community which for years taught that their pastor was a second Messiah now owns some of the world’s largest and most important Christian websites, has built or acquired some of the most well known secular news properties, has virtually taken over one of the world’s oldest Evangelical institutions, and has convinced dozens of senior Evangelical leaders to support them.

What could possibly go wrong?

Click on THIS to read annotations, ignore the complaints. I went image-pdf-image (including the added "NOTES") this time.

Click on THIS to read annotations, ignore the complaints. I went image-pdf-image (including the added “NOTES”) this time. It does confirm that there is a “Related Transaction” status between Olivet U and IBT Media at least as to the personnel.  Other tax returns acknowledge the above to entities also on Sched-R along with some bookstores (incl. one in North Carolina…).

There’s plenty more to be said on this situation, and on Christian Post.  But not today…


To continue my conversation on keeping publication schedules and the burdens (: of being a one-woman outfit here…, Working on the (imminent and upcoming etc.) post was no burdenthat’s (in case you haven’t guessed yet) the fun part. Maintaining the quality control while digging in a new field of interest, communicating regarding existing ones, and meeting my own post-production goals of no less than one a week, was, well, reducing the psychological “ROI” of the work.

How Many Unified City/County Governments are there, and Since When, and Why?  Here’s One (Wyandotte County|KCK, since 1997)” came off an update to a 1/1/2012 post needed to justify publishing a (nearly-ready) post called “2017 Retrospective.”  Allegedly by completing that, I could also publish the “Retrospective” post in good shape.

The 1/1/2012 update had so many inserts, I outsourced first one of them, then another as also an important topic (reflected in the title).  This “interrupt-and-expand” process was repeated on the new (above) one.  Even with a recent blog update (name-change to “FamilyCourtMatters.org” and — why I did it — increase the capacity of its Media Library, which stores the images or pdf files I include in the posts) may not alleviate the need to find another publishing format, soon, for this information.

Olivet U Year 2013 Form 990, Pt VIII (REVENUES) Showing suddenly $5,532,000 "Royalties" Click here for the related "pdf"

Olivet U Year 2013 Form 990, Pt VIII (REVENUES) Showing suddenly $5,532,000 “Royalties” Click here for the related “pdf

Olivet U Year 2014 Form 990 Pt. VIII (Revenues) showing a fraction of Royalties but on Line 2 (Program Service Revs) suddenly $8.2M "Research." Makes you wonder. Click here for my commentary (related pdf)

Olivet U Year 2014 Form 990 Pt. VIII (Revenues) showing a fraction of Royalties but on Line 2 (Program Service Revs) suddenly $8.2M “Research.” Makes you wonder. Click here for my commentary (related pdf)










So, I had to admit I cannot continue investing personal time tweaking posts in hope they will stick to their assigned publication deadlines AND topics, when public, in-common and private life these days is involved with so many networked financial interests, most (I think it’s fair to say) having acquired their market supremacy and world-changing capacities at least two generations (or about 50 years) ago, or at some levels, 100 years ago.

Speaking of historic timelines

Meanwhile, for a comparison, women in this country have not yet been able to vote even 100 years, and freed slave MALES, not that much longer. It’s fair and just to say that at most points of “development” of the United States of America, the early phases of development have made sure to disenfranchise MOST (at least half) the population, and then want “extra credit” for changing that, belatedly, and partially.

Women were only belatedly admitted to some of the most elite and “running-the-government” private universities around, such as: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, Brown (etc.).   They were sometimes run through separate (and unequal) companion institutions, I guess to keep the elite breeding stock having women to marry and produce heirs to keep the corporate empires going …..  There’s nothing new about the dual forms of discrimination.  Even the ABA in its earlier history was behind state laws in admitting African Americans already holding government positions.  Go read the timeline (it’s in there!)….

(This does have a cumulative effect…)

As to Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964 in “backing off” some forms of racism, it’s been countered by moving venues, I do believe, to places where open confrontation of it was less likely to cause negative publicity, in part because national news doesn’t tend to carry these types of news.  (From what I’ve been able to reconstruct, on the history of HHS, and of certain types of nonprofits involved heavily with HHS funding (that is to say particularly fathers’ rights, children’s rights so-called, and domestic violence or “family violence” prevention) it appears to have moved to the social services/mental health sectors) and transformed the language of discrimination into more “esoteric” terminology, hoping to make it sound as scientific as possible.

Those realms were social science, behavioral (modification) science, psychology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis (which is — let’s be frank about this – to say, “Freud”), mental health etc.  In another time, this might have simply been called “eugenics” but as in the attempt to distance racism from, well, racism, an attempt to distance “sociology’ and social science sectors from, well, basically altered forms of eugenics (population control, breeding practices as of animals with a view towards patriotic impulses for the same).  I still believe that some of this was borrowed from experimentation with the first applications in South and Southwest Africa a century ago, and I’m talking primarily the Germans and the Brits.  I have posted on this over time, and some summaries with links are in text widgets on my sidebar.

I remember being particularly impressed and absorbed by a Chronology of Namibia from Pre-Historic to Independence (Dec. 2000, it reads © 2000-2005 from an civil? engineer Klaus Dierks who lived there, in part for its extensive details and tone.  Main webpage (then click on “Table of Contents”).

Now that I can do screen shots, starting with the early 1800s, through “German Southwest Africa” coming first under League of Nations mandate, then under UN Mandate (administered by South Africa?) followed by attempts of South Africa to incorporate (whats now Namibia), which is protested, and other struggles — the situations change, but the types of issues do not seem to (see Table of Contents link to explore any of the headings shown in image):



Section 3.2, the 1840s (Trade + Missionaries): <==Click to read.

From the 1840s, this is what “colonialism” looks like.  There will be a religious component to justify it where reason or innate need would not. It demands total restructuring along external (here, European) priorities, slaughters wildlife and, eventually, people too (either directly or through attrition — which came later in the history of this area) drains natural resources, discourages or forcibly curtails independence of small social units where they may have been found, wipes out whatever happens to be living in the area (except as found useful for trade), and it has an ultimate goal of control, including of the people, or where not possible through their resistance or attempts to stand their ground, deporting or (as was attempted in this country later, by the Germans) exterminating them.  After the Germans were defeated, then the Allies, wishing to show goodwill, participated (corrected perhaps maybe a century later, in part only) in censoring the detailed records (such as Germans tend to keep) of their own slave labor and extermination camps upon the Nama and Herero people (“the Blue Book” regarding Sharp Island and other camps).    See above image from 3.2, heavily annotated (by me).


COLONIAL/GERMAN RULE (1890) ACTIVE RESISTANCE EGINS. Imperial Germany declares the protectorate a “Crown Colony.” British, hesitant about plans to link the German colony with the Republic of Transvaal, declares Bechuanaland a protectorate, and the eastern borders are regulated following this fait accompli. (chronology/45).



(Same link: Active Resistance Begins: Euro-style dates in chronology, so the timeframe is May (##-05) and June (##-06). Borders and sale of land including mining rights): A sale of land treaty is agreed between the Kharaskhoma-Syndicate and Chief Tseib of the Kharo-!oan in Keetmanshoop. This treaty includes all mining rights. 20.05. Gˆring [Goehring??] writes to Hendrik Witbooi from Okahandja to make peace and to urge him to move from Hornkranz to Gibeon. He further informs Witbooi that the Ovaherero are again under German protection. 29.05. In his reply Hendrik Witbooi informs Gˆring that the Witbooi Nama will maintain their independence. Witbooi is the only leader who consistently refuses to sign a protection treaty with the Germans. 30.05. Hendrik Witbooi writes to Samuel Maharero, stating: “You will eternally regret that you have given your land and your right to rule into the hands of the whites.” 25.06. The Finnish Missionary Society establishes a mission station at Ondangwa. 01.07 (i.e. 1st of July 1890). The Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty is signed by Britain and Germany, whereby Germany accepts the northern high-water line of the Oranje River as the boundary with South Africa…





Resistance Results in Genocide (Chronology.61)..

[Jan 11, 1904]:  Samuel Maharero orders all Ovaherero chiefs to take up arms against the Germans. He orders them to “refrain from touching missionaries, English, Basters, Berg-Damaras, Namas and Boers“. There are doubts concerning the date of this order. It is possible that Maharero wrote this letter after the outbreak of the war (around 20.01.), after the first shots were fired in Okahandja, where it is not clear at all, who actually fired these first shots (Missionary Diehl reports that only the Germans fired on his house, not the Ovaherero).
Samuel Maharero tries to involve the Basters, under Hermanus van Wyk and Hendrik Witbooi, in the struggle. The two letters Samuel sends to Witbooi never reach him, and Van Wyk is not willing to support Samuel. Van Wyk hands over the letters for Witbooi to the Germans. In the second of these letters Samuel writes: “All our obedience and patience with the Germans is of little avail, for each day they shoot someone dead for no reason at all. Hence I appeal to you, my Brother, not to hold aloof from the uprising, but to make your voice heard so that all Africa may take up arms against the Germans. Let us die fighting rather than die as a result of maltreatment, imprisonment or some other form of calamity.” These three letters were also written after the outbreak of the war. They can therefore, together with Samuel Maharero’s order, not be used as proof of a premeditated insurrection on the part of the Ovaherero.
On the other hand, from the very beginning of the German presence in SWA, substantial numbers of Ovaherero are employed by the German army, either as labourers, waggon drivers, herdsmen, batmen or even soldiers. After the outbreak of the war a number of Ovaherero continue to serve in the German forces. Some are even killed on the German side.

ABOUT THAT BLUE BOOK: (I have blogged this before,. so it’s just a reminder and some links):

Words Cannot Be Found:  Annotated Reprint.  An H-net review.  As the website (if you click on “About”) says, it’s Humanities and Social Science On-line, and housed at the Michigan State University History Department.

Jeremy Silvester, Jan-Bart Gewald, eds. Words Cannot Be Found: German Colonial Rule in Namibia: An Annotated Reprint of the 1918 Blue Book. Leiden: Brill, 2003. xxxvii + 366 pp. $49.00 (paper), ISBN 978-90-04-12981-8. Reviewed by Meredith McKittrick (Department of History, Georgetown University)
Published on H-SAfrica (July, 2007)    (That price is interesting because now Amazon is offering it used, paperback, $77, and $110, more than double, new…).

The Amazon brief review of the book (see image); quotes from the H-net review also:

This famous report was republished in honor of the 2004 centenary of the 1904-08 Namibian War–in which Herero and Nama fought, and were defeated by, German colonial occupiers at a horrific cost. The editors, Jeremy Silvester and Jan-Bart Gewald, intend it as “a memorial to those who died” (p. xxxvi). They have added to the original Blue Book a substantial and informative introduction that places the document in its historical context, exploring its creation, its near-destruction, its importance to Namibian history, and its significance to a larger history of colonialism and genocide. They also include a thorough bibliography and an index, helpful to readers overwhelmed by the report’s 356 pages. … [para omitted]

The Blue Book’s origins lie in the First World War, when South African forces under British command invaded German-controlled Namibia. After defeating the German army, the colony was governed under a South African military administration. British and South African officials were aware that a case would have to be made for retaining control of Germany’s colonies. When the British government requested “a statement suitable for publication” that “natives” of these colonies were anxious to live under British rule, officials in South West Africa were already prepared, having translated German documents and collected additional information on “the treatment received by native races” under German rule. The resulting document, according to Silvester and Gewald, “served to scuttle any attempt by Germany to retain control over Namibia” (p. xix).

The 1918 Blue Book offers a history of German occupation and rule of Namibia; ethnographic information on the colony’s various “tribes”; narratives of various examples of African resistance; long descriptions (textual and photographic) of German atrocities toward Africans, committed by both settlers and military men; and an explanation of the German legal code for Africans. It makes for grim reading even for someone familiar with descriptions of colonial violence.

In continuing to quote more paragraphs from this source, I’m relying on the © 2007 notice at the bottom of the page.  I think the information is important, and this is a public-interest, not a commercialized blog.  If people (involved with writing or publishing this on-line) think otherwise, they may submit a comment on this post to contact me. This continues with the next paragraph of the review and I feel is self-explanatory. “While I’m here,…” all emphases (bold, underline, and change of font color to blue) above, and below, are added, by me… The credits I’m posting below the next quote in the form of a screenshot.

The report’s primary creator–a military magistrate stationed in a small town–was also critical of British actions in Namibia after the war, to the point that it ended his government career. But among higher authorities, there were obvious ulterior motives for creating the Blue Book. These motives have often led to a dismissal of the entire product as (according to the German Namibian historian, Brigitte Lau) “an English piece of war propaganda with no credibility whatsoever” (quoted, p. xxi). The editors’ introduction makes clear what historians of Namibia already know: whatever the motives of its authors, the Blue Book’s information is corroborated extensively by other archival evidence. Their careful research on the report’s construction allows them to refute definitively various charges as to its inaccuracy.

In chronicling anything (make a note, people chronicling their personal case histories in family courts) remember that there is always an opportunity for it to be discredited due to ulterior motive; documentation would deter dismissal.

BUT, in telling people to switch their attention off “anecdotal evidence” in the current times, and regarding our court system, I am also telling people to go for forms of documentation about which there can be little argument, and that particularly when the critique is of government handling of, say, custody, divorce, child abuse, domestic violence or other tax-supported public policy, it definitely helps to quote government sources — like those financial statements, propaganda website (fatherhood.gov, just one example) and records of one entity talking to another, etc.

The construction of the Blue Book was unusual in that it relied so heavily on the accounts of the defeated. German authorities had left a detailed archive of their time in Namibia, complete with the use of “concentration camps” after the 1904-08 uprising, and photographs of hanging and flogging victims. These were featured prominently in the Blue Book. So were African voices. A major feature of the report is statements by Africans complaining of mistreatment by German employers and officials. The editors note that the events of 1904-08 are largely absent in Herero and Nama orature. To some extent, the experiences and perspectives of those who lived through German colonial rule and the repressions that followed the Herero-Nama uprising against the Germans survive within the so-called Blue Book. The editors could have done a bit more to explain how these perspectives are necessarily filtered by the medium of a British government report (written by the same government that was, in fact, turning a blind eye to or committing acts of violence itself). But the information is nonetheless very valuable given the lack of African sources on the period of German rule.

The editors argue that this African testimony constitutes a valuable source on “the particular features of colonial genocide,” and they are right. The Blue Book is also “a key text in the production of colonial discourse” (p. xxxiii) in which “German” vs. “British” identities were constructed alongside a white supremacist, paternalist ideology (in the form of derogatory terms for Africans, among other things).

But the German-British opposition was to some extent a temporary one, a product of a particular historical moment. Britain never investigated any of the Blue Book’s allegations. Once South Africa was awarded Namibia as a mandated territory in 1920, a new agenda came to the fore: unifying the divided white settler community of Germans and recent, mostly Afrikaner, immigrants from South Africa. The Blue Book very nearly did not survive this process of reconciliation. In 1926, orders were given for its destruction. All known copies of the Blue Book in Namibia were destroyed by 1935; the circulation of those copies that remained in British hands was tightly controlled.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at: https://networks.h-net.org/h-safrica.

Citation: Meredith McKittrick. Review of Silvester, Jeremy; Gewald, Jan-Bart, eds., Words Cannot Be Found: German Colonial Rule in Namibia: An Annotated Reprint of the 1918 Blue Book. H-SAfrica, H-Net Reviews. July, 2007.

Copyright © 2007 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at hbooks@mail.h-net.msu.edu.

First link in that last quote (ending “h-Safrica”) leads to more information also about H-Net.  An “Appeals” 2005) letter summarizes its 1994 start, how host Michigan State University helped, and (at the time) there was a $250K Operating budget needs, in addition to what MUS provided, as well as depending on the hundreds of volunteers.  It talks in October 2005 about getting tax-exempt statusas having been obtained “since we wrote last” which, shown below, was within the last year. The sidebar posts links to several ways to donate, a declaration that it’s a tax-exempt entity (mailing address, East Lansing Michigan), but I notice, as I now routinely will be noticing these things, does NOT post its EIN# or a link to any financial statements or Forms 990.  They do have links to Donate On-line, Donate by Mail, Donate by Phone, Testimonials, and even lists of Individual Sponsors, plus an Appeal (link above) from the President — but not self-identification as a fiscal entity, and no statements.  And I’m viewing this in 2017 … Hmm.


(Quote from H-Net):

H-NET is the world’s largest scholarly society dedicated to the free and open application of new media to scholarship, teaching, and service in the humanities and social sciences. Its driving energy comes from hundreds of volunteer field experts who serve as editors and advisors for H-NET’s vast collection of communications networks, where hundreds of thousands of subscribers and readers meet to share information, discuss their professional and educational interests, and pursue the life of the mind online. H-NET’s networks are also the source of H-NET Reviews in the Humanities and Social Sciences, the internet’s largest online repository of scholarly reviews of books, film, and multimedia. H-NET also provides a Job Guide and a powerful events and announcements system to disseminate accurate and timely information about available academic positions, conferences, seminars, fellowships, and other opportunities for scholars, teachers, and the interested public.

In order to preserve the integrity and independence of H-NET’s networks, our constitution and by-laws prohibit commercial advertising or subscription-based access to H-NET’s resources. We therefore fund our services through grants, revenues for Job Guide advertisements, and donations – your donations. The funds we raise from these and other sources support the staff, computing resources, and programming talent that generate powerful and useful content for our editors and their networks.

You can support H-NET with your donation. You can donate online through a VeriSign-secure site, by mail, or by telephone.

H-Net is classified as a tax-exempt nonprofit charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code, effective February 20, 2004. Your contribution may be tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. Please contact your tax advisor for further information.

From the “Appeals” page (Oct. 2005, link above) we see it also has a partner organization:

H-Net is also engaged in a partnership with the Organization of American Historians to assess the growing impact on the historical profession of the federal government�s Teaching American History program, which so far has spent a half-billion dollars on in-service history education for teachers.

These activities are a few of the benefits H-Net provides its readers and users — they are in addition to our increasingly popular Job Guide, H-Net Reviews (which continues to grow at a terrific pace), and of course our vibrant, informative, and spam-free discussion networks.

These initiatives require a major investment in programming, equipment, and operations – both by our hosts at Michigan State University and through the support of friends such as yourself, at a recurring operating cost that now stands at approximately $250,000 per year, in addition to MSU’s substantial and generous support of our organization.

The H-Net Council is appealing for your support so that we can continue to make these services and our growing archive of content free and accessible to everyone.

Please help us in this effort. A contribution of at least $25 by each of our active subscribers will fund the programming, staffing, content development, and technology improvements for H-Net’s next generation of users.

Donations are tax-exempt and can be made one of three convenient ways

Patience please.  One more quote, and I’m going for the filings.

On the same page, further down, there is a summary combined with appeal, showing that yes, a major amount of work is involved in producing this on-line service.  That said, what’s the excuse for not providing an EIN# yet? Or since?

That also said, MSU is itself a public-supported, state university, part of a statewide system as (I believe, but haven’t personally checked) EVERY one of the 50 states (well, Delaware, Rhode Island — maybe not, maybe?) also has, at major investments (including their pension funds, real estate construction, maintenance, staffing, telecommunications of course — everything that goes into running a university).  Universities also often take major donations from their alumni (often in exchange for having some building, program, school, institute or center named after the donor, or donor’s parents, to honor and broadcast their generosity).  AND those pooled institutional investments, are making, not losing, money year after year, typically.

Post-Publication Fact Check on MSU.  Definitions of its relation (as a land grant college system since 1863, with 17 colleges) are found within the 2015-2016 Audited Financial Statements.  Here’s the Controller’s page (“MSU Financial Statements“) where more statements are found.  The statement itself and page look clean and well organized.  I learned that MSU is NOT a “component unit” of the State of Michigan, however there is a Michigan State Foundation (private tax-exempt entity) which while not operating under the same auditing standards as MSU, is considered a component unit of it.  That “component unit” stuff (see Auditors’ letter of transmittal, Notes to Financial Statements, MD&A (Management Discussion & Analysis, etc.) is always good to read for basic understanding of WHO the financial reports, literally, refer to. (I’m adding three images; pick the appropriate pdf (showing filename titles) to read full-size, incl. the annotations; I didn’t “tweak” the ext to put the links into each image’s caption this time.)

mich-state-univ-note-1-to-fs-for-yejun2016-2015-showiing-its-not-a-component-unit-of-state-of-mi-per-gasb-etc-yescrshot-2017-02-06-at-1023am mich-state-univ-note-1-to-fs-for-yejun2016-2015-showiing-its-not-a-component-unit-of-state-of-mi-per-gasb-etc-yescrshot-2017-02-06-at-1023am msu-mda-p1-for-audited-fs-yejun30-2016-and-2015-scrschot-2017-02-06-am | msu-mda-p1-for-audited-fs-yejun30-2016-and-2015-scrschot-2017-02-06-am

msu-oct-27-2016-ind-auditors-report-transmittal-ltr-for-fs-ye-2016-scrshot-2017-02-06-am msu-oct-27-2016-ind-auditors-report-transmittal-ltr-for-fs-ye-2016-scrshot-2017-02-06-am

(I just looked up MSU Foundation IRS Form 990s (tax returns) (assets approaching ½ billion, income from assets latest year shown, $23M) and found an “MSU College of Law Foundation (assets currently $14M, and declining last 3 years) not even mentioned on the MSU financial statements (that I saw).  In addition, clicking on the latest MSU Foundation Form 990 (only for FYear 2014…), you can see that it wholly owns another foundation (with the name “MBI International” appended and other subsidiaries to help translate MSU research into commercial activities.  Good thing they included an EIN#, because it’s not called “MBI International,” but “Michigan Biotechnology Institute“)

Would all this be included in the Basic Financial Statements which (read annotated images) the Plante & Moran Independent Auditor’s Report makes clear, it did not audit, but is presenting discretely because the foundation is a “component unit” (and the only one) of MSU?

<==The public has been “giving at the office” regularly, most of them, if they are drawing a paycheck and paying taxes, that includes federal income taxes for the federal education loans, grants, etc.  So with any appeal for money SHOULD come at least a confession, and an exhibition of the statements document where and how it’s been spent. The request for funds I’m quoting came 10 years (1994-2004) after the project started.

For any non-profit that has to file– that’s a tax return!  For the MSU support specific to this project. ongoing since 1994, that would take some more digging to find.  I’ve read several state-university CAFRs by now (as well as statewide CAFRs) and have found it hard, if even possible, to pinpoint donated funds, or services, that specifically from the university financial statements on down. It could be done, but at major effort, probably writing some letters or filing some FOIA requests.  The information doesn’t seem to be readily provided at the university level, is what I’m saying:

Continuing from this web page viewed Feb. 5, 2017 as I write: https://www.h-net.org/donations/?location=appeals

In addition to the logs, there are Web sites for every single one of the 140+ discussion networks. These Web sites have useful information on recent posts, book reviews, resources, links, and sometimes educational materials such as syllabi.

The promotion of Discussion Networks does not just involve the production of discussion and access to logs– it requires the training of editors, the development of new tools, the attention to issues of intellectual property rights and editorial oversight to uphold the values of scholarly moderation. For example, at the next year’s AHA the H-NET Council is developing ideas to suggest to H-NET Editors for an Editors Workshop a day preceding the conference. As I mentioned above, a community is a mutual endeavor that means that the H-NET Council, Editors, and Staff NEED your support too. Many of these initiatives have been funded through grants and the generosity of Michigan State University. We have no choice now but to move to a phase where we rely on ourselves now and this means that our editors and readers must step up to the plate and contribute. Please, do not wait for others to do this. Whether you are reading this from H-Quilt or H-MedAnthro or H- West; EVERYONE is part of this community.

Whether you can contribute $5 or $50 or $100 IT ALL COUNTS and it demonstrates YOUR commitment to this community. Please forward this message to others that may want to join our efforts, and remember to take a moment and go to the H-NET Donations Page.

Allow me to review the donation possibilities. I hope you will consider making a donation at: http://www.h-net.org/donations/ You can donate online, by mail, or by phone in a secure environment. Donations of all sizes are important because only together can we make sure that H-NET can continue. As the Executive Director, Mark Kornbluh, mentioned last week it takes about $200,000 a year to pay technicians, editors, and other staff – as well as the hardware necessary to develop and host the discussion networks, job guides, book reviews, announcements, and other initiatives. In addition to the donations page we also have a click through to all the major book vendors, so that if you click to them through H-NET, a portion of that purchase price will go to support your networks on H-NET. You can go to this site at: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/ You can click ON to the vendors from the review page above, or at the book reviews.

I appreciate your consideration.  Sincerely, Marilyn A. Levine, President H-NET

RE: (from bottom of earlier H-Net Quote):

H-Net is classified as a tax-exempt nonprofit charitable organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code, effective February 20, 2004. Your contribution may be tax deductible to the extent allowed by law. Please contact your tax advisor for further information.

[My emphasis on “may” is added.  It’s a major undertaking — Why playing so coy about self-revelation?] [Link — after clicking around quite a bit more — to  a “2008 restated articles of incorporation as Non-Profit” as H-Net: Humanities and Social Sciences On-Line”] Business Entities Search Page (LARA – Michigan) confirms the Entity# 752505 is this entity.  In just a few clicks, I learned that it incorporated in 6/2001, restated articles in 2008 (as they claimed above) and as of 2013, stopped filing such that last December (12/1/2016) they were Administratively Dissolved.  Meanwhile, the appeals for funds remain up…. (next few images).  Anyone can reconstruct the search, so I’m not printing to pdfs for these:

1 of 4 images (Search results page) for H-Net

1 of 4 images (Search results page) for H-Net

2 of 4 images, H-Net on Michigan's LARA website, this is the face page showing Admin Dissolution Dec 2016

2 of 4 images, H-Net on Michigan’s LARA website, this is the face page showing Admin Dissolution Dec 2016






Page 3 of 4 re H-Net from Michigan.gov's LARA, this shows the last 10 documents, incl. that no annual rept since 2013 (it seems 10/page, there were 11 so only one more record to show, Pg. 4/4)

Page 3 of 4 re H-Net from Michigan.gov’s LARA, this shows the last 10 documents, incl. that no annual rept since 2013 (@10/page, only one record more to show).

H-Net Page 4/4 on Michigan.gov's "LARA" database, showing Articles of Inc. show 2001, so why did it take until 2004 to get IRS approval? The host is UMichigan Dept of History

H-Net Page 4/4 on Michigan.gov’s “LARA” database, showing Articles of Inc. show 2001, so why did it take until 2004 to get IRS approval? The host is MSU (MI State Univ). Dept of History










So, you KNOW I’m going for that tax return (didn’t have the proper “plug-in” to upload the articles of incorporation).  I see three years of “0” assets, but always click for more information — there is still money going to (donations and program service revenues both) this entity, which lists as is main “independent contractor” simply the University of Michigan….  Here’s the table (also based on the tax return, the amount “$0.00” doesn’t even seem to be accurate — look at the Summary on Page 1).  Not to mention which — why are they still doing business in the State of Michigan in years while NO annual report was shown as registered — and the government site says reports filed electronically are shown VERY fast, and by paper, within 48 hours…)?

Total results: 3Search Again.


The number “$0.00” in the Total Assets Column does NOT match the underlying tax returns.  I question why, or under what software procedure, this might happen, or how it happened, implying something like an inactive corporation.  This corporation (nonprofit) is NOT inactive — it’s just continuing to operate illegally, on the Michigan State U. campus, having failed to maintain its annual reports with the state LARA system.

And for good measure=, here’s their initial return Fiscal Year 2004 (fuzzy imaging) (so marked, although they received receipts and were operational in 2003, no tax return for that year is shown.  Their fiscal year begins like many schools and governments’ July 1 and ends June 30 of the next year.  So the latest tax return shown above is for fiscal year 2014 (ending June 30, 2015), bringing up the question, how long does it take to get the next year’s submitted and uploaded here? (It’s now been seven months after close of fiscal year, and this entity’s operations are basically the same, year after year).

I see what’s happening here, but writing and imaging-it up from the tax returns is not on today’s agenda.  Anyone else with basic observation skills, and who cares about such things, might also see what’s happening. For the record Peter N. Knupfer seems to have been CEO from the start, and a good portion of every year’s expenses, not including reimbursing the University of Michigan for personnel services (thus retaining a “0” employees status) — and that includes for those employees benefits, not just time as an “independent contractor” while the university also supplies, looks like more than it gets back in free use of facilities.  Image and related pdf (shows rest of bio blurb not caught on image) shows he’s an Associate Professor there, bachelors’ degree mid-1970s from UWisconsin-Madison:


He looks happy. Should I write in and say, “Have your nonprofit re-instate itself with the State of Michigan, and may I please see personnel details for the yearly contracts the organization has been paying USM, and for the apparent main source of any significant revenue, the “Job Guide” for the profession? Click Here for rest of bio (He got to spend a year with family in S Africa recently)


Yeah, well, the “paternalism continues” to this day in public policy aimed at, again insisting our social space be constructed in a politically correct manner, our children be raised in politically correct manners also, and the emphasis in public discourse on things financial hammers home the debt burden, budget deficit, versus actual, comparable numbers, showing total holdings, income-producing assets, and where the stuff is invested.  YES, it takes work to locate, even think about such things — but consider again.  Regarding this first genocide of the 20th century — what was the motive if not financial profit, exploitation, etc.?  

Credits for an H-Net book review of "WORDS CANNOT TELL" by a History professor? from Georgetown. Posted 2-4-2017.

Credits for an H-Net book review of “WORDS CANNOT TELL” by a History professor? from Georgetown. Posted 2-4-2017. (This was illegible as you can see I posted the text above, far above)

My take on backing off racism in the US is that it was somehow expected that, again, women would sacrifice some of their recently acquired and much appreciated progress (if you will) in work, college, government, and at home in the family.  I don’t know that most women of faith ever truly expected to be fully-“enfranchised” or treated fairly under the traditional millennia-long, or more, “Abrahamic” religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), or other ones from countries with notable caste systems (Hindi or Buddhist, etc.).  In addition, in the 1900s, we have had major operations such as the “Unification Church” involved in significant ways with segments of Christianity (the financing portions in particular), not to mention in international money-laundering, specializing in the use of front-operations, enslaving followers for religious reasons and (as it came out, if you followed the news after Rev. Sun Myung Moon — 8 years after a mock coronation ceremony of him and his wife, “True Parents” in a U.S. Senate (Dirksen) building and involving key U.S. Legislators (including one from Illinois) — went to another place (or, at least, died), the origins of his religious persuasion had close origins in the sexual abuse of young women (see my right sidebar, Vital Links, near the bottom) as a form of purification of the bloodline (or some such).

Throughout many religions, and among politicians, a key polarizing issue is What to do With or To the Women.. and what should “we” or should “we NOT” (ahem) “let them do.”??  Like preach?  Be ordained?  Preach to the opposite gender?  ASSOCIATE unaccompanied by an adult male — in the USA — with the opposite gender?  Marry at will instead of as arranged, and marry outside the religion?  Divorce?  IF they divorce, should they be allowed to retain primary care and legal authority over raising their offspring, or should they made to (a) forfeit the same (look into “covenant marriage” and your looking to penalize whoever leaves the marriage.  Now picture this:  the situation is violent, escalating lethal and someone had to RUN.  Should that person be penalized by forfeiting ever seeing their kids again, or be penalized by having to PAY to see them when the “crime” is saying no to spousal abuse, or abuse of children, or even, continuing marriage to a person when the marriage has become a soul-destroying intolerable?  Some religious sectors, and particularly Catholic sectors (see “Defending Our Father’s House” statement with its Opus Dei signers) still say yes, and have strategies to make this religious “yes” applicable to ALL people in the country, faith-filled or atheist.

In situations where it is so abusive and/or violent and a condition of high, if not extortionist future prospects on a woman who leaves includes leaving her children IN the abusive situation, or having them — which is how it currently works, FYI — then suddenly switched back to it after some freedom FROM it — will those women then just stay, risking (literally in enough cases) death and serious injury, rather than risking lifelong battle for freedom for themselves AND their offspring?  Is this what the USA is to represent?


Some of the upcoming post represents material I’ve known for a long time and am bringing up again as summary (with show-and-tell, as is the style) for reminders.  We still have “The National Fatherhood Initiative” and we still have the AFCC and it’s many strange professionals pushing their themes through, around and in the family court system, BOTH of the above interested in re-framing the concept of domestic violence into something other than what, for those who have been forced to deal with it, it is — and that’s criminal behavior by family members towards other family members.

The National Fatherhood Initiative “just so happened” to be sharing a mailing address including suite#, with a number of entities, two of them looking more like front websites (although they might be legitimate), but one of them having major international connections (REGUS.com) and having just recently (Nov./Dec. 2016) called for an extraordinary shareholders meeting about some listing and jurisdiction changes.

Other of this material is quite new, but is making sense of its place in the “macro” understanding of “how things work” in the USA — what the average citizen ought to understand as at least influencing it.

Who owns which Publication/Telecommunications Outlets came up again in this research. I am particularly interested to remind ALL readers that ANYTHING they read on line has a platform, and it is companies that typically own that platform, and MAJOR companies owning the major media stations, news outlets, and telecommunications media — and they are in all of those businesses for the primary reason corporations exist — that is, to profit their investors, shareholders, and owners.  That is also the reason related tax-exempt philanthropies (so-called) also exist.  Grant-making or not primarily grant-making, they exist so lesser tax is paid on income and revenues produced by assets held, while retaining control of those assets as an overall advantage in (whoever owns them’s) a financial strategy and plan — for the owners, whether a family line, a family line and close associations, or a public/private partnership.

While REGUS, plc and its new owner(?) or manifestation IWG, plc have UK and “Jersey” (as an Island off Great Britain with different financial standards and qualifiers that attracts companies), and the related Financial Adviser “Investec Bank, plc” (put together with “Investec Bank, Ltd.” is a major global influence, the latter originating 1974 in South Africa), there also remains the troubling truth that neither the National Fatherhood Initiative, including with its various trademarks to market its various goods, nor, “case in point” example from the upcoming post, “AFCC” (Association of Family Conciliation —- or Family AND Conciliation — Courts) -the California Chapter, is particularly ethical, consistent, or regular about even staying filed at the state level.

[[added post-publication, I’d omitted the reference to “AFCC” (green font) as to “the California Chapter.”  So far as I know, National Fatherhood Initiatives doesn’t feature state chapters.  The two versions of this chapter’s name (with / without the word ‘AND”) reflects its own ambivalence on IRS tax returns, this century, which the next post, as I recall, demonstrates.  In short, it’s inconsistent even in naming itself on tax returns — and this is a nonprofit over the years whose board typically includes  judges (current or retired), lawyers, LCSWs, LMFTs, and Custody Evaluators, and which last return I saw included (again, fact-check, this is “as I recall”) a Supervising Family Court Commissioner whose parents (lawyers / family law firm) was described as having a “family law dynasty” in San Bernardino County, California!)]]

I mentioned the CAFRs again as the post leading-edge topic about Consolidated City/County Government was obtained from a quotation of an article on this topic from Kansas City, Kansas’ 1997 Consolidation with Wyandotte County, KS (i.e., that “City/County” consolidation), and a short (44pp or so) article on whether or not these consolidations did in fact save local governments money, was citing CAFRs to prove or disprove that point.

I quoted a 2012 exchange between Walter Burien and Carl Herman on the CAFR issue within California, with Carl Herman’s cite, which I’d read several times before and had quoted on this post several times as well (see also dialogues in early 2014 on Burien | Ellen H. Brown, Web of Debt | Green Party candidate for Treasurer, “back when” in California, posted at that time.  I’d submitted a comment to a web page and suddenly found myself the recipient of private emails involving third parties and (seemingly) with the general thrust, “where are you coming from” and an attempt to assess whether I could be turned away from trusting Mr. Burien — when his writing is about the most straightforward around, and I’ve yet to see anyone able to disprove it citing to the governmental financial reports themselves.  What one does with information is one matter, but actually looking at the information precedes it — and somehow the “argument” studiously avoided ever getting to the point of pointing to the evidence and arguing from it.

Which makes me wonder whether people are choosing their beliefs from associations (people they get along with, and can “understand” vs. those they just don’t “get” — who have conflicting information with one’s familiars) or from an awareness of some REAL ground-level truths about, well, accounting, which however it’s tweaked or cooked (at which point, the tweaking or cooking is a  point of discussion) at least involves a language which is comparable across jurisdictions, and across sectors.  In other words, both private corporations and government entities have sources of revenues, operating expenses, capital, liabilities and assets.  The difference is, where these come from and what is and is not taxed or tax-deductible.  Government can be compared to corporate along those lines, as well as within sector.

So, continuing this “Reader Alert” post, when I quoted the June 2012 exchange at CAFR1.com/herman, I clicked on the enclosed “examiner.com” article and saw that the publication had been taken over by another company, the website (which is one thing) labeled AXS.com — but (fine print, footer information), the ownership, which might not even be the most current representation — claims to be AEC, a “wholly-owned subsidiary of The Anschutz Company.

Being who I am, I looked it up, including many business filings which showed me Kansas, Colorado and Delaware entities (The Anschutz COMPANY formed in 1991 Delaware, doing business as ANS Equity, Inc. in Colorado, later became the surviving company of a merger with the 1959ff “Anschutz Corporation” from Kansas.  When the 1959 Anschutz Corporation from Kansas was no longer the “surviving” entity, the name “Anschutz Corporation” became available again in Colorado, so “ANS Equity, Inc.” (at some point a dba of “The Anschutz Company”) took over the Corporation name, and (I still haven’t figured this part of the puzzle out), somehow the Kansas-based “Corporation” relinquished its authority to do business as itself in Colorado, only in October, 2015.

Be that as it may, I got a self-appointed refresher course in this oil-drilling, ranching, rail-road, telecommunications, real estate (of course) and eventually major entertainment/sports powerhouse, under the second major leader figure, who’d started out with his father’s company decades ago, Philip F. Anschutz.

Inbetween and before then, I was attempting to understand the Nov. 2016 prospectus of IWG, plc and WHY such a big point would be made about NOT offering securities in the US, yet it would have a need to retain a US SEC-based securities-exemption (from registration) for its offerings.  IWG stands for “International Workplace Group” and deals with flexible workplaces.  I found that a major financial institution I’d dealt with (US based) was part of a group of investors owning over 5%, and so forth.

Inbetween that mental-sweat-producing, again, self-appointed investigation (as to the US Securities Exchange Commission and international investments between the London and Johannesburg Stock Exchanges, parts and all that — and why a US nonprofit that depends and exploits its original leadership’s connection to federal HHS appointees, that is, the “NFI” — would choose to rent a mailing address from an entity which swears up one side and down the other it is NOT going to allow investments or sale of securities in ANY state of the US, or in the USA)(I assure you that looking up business filings of yet another corporation doesn’t even start to break a mental sweat)  — I was reminded that there is recent campaign to put secession from the United States via a Constitutional Amendment on the State of California. [see “fn1”]  This being an on-line campaign, it has a website (YesCalifornia.org) and as it is a campaign, somewhere there is a company.  I see from the website that the company is called a PAC, haven’t yet located the “PAC” as filed somewhere (though it probably is), but somehow I associated the Corporation “Yes California, Inc.” as related to this campaign — and quickly researched some of its filings, including street address search, which led to some things which didn’t smell (even close to) right about it.

This is reflected in the images near the very top of the post, quoted below.


Post title and shortlinkHow Many Unified City/County Governments are there, and Since When, and Why?  Here’s One (Wyandotte County|KCK, since 1997)

[Note: WordPress-generated shortlinks, unlike web and email addresses, seem to be case-sensitive (if you’re planning to type it, keep the same upper/lower case configuration.  This one ends “5CC” — a separate one generated a few days ago, I noticed ended “5Cc.” ).

This moves material from my January 2017 updates to a January 1, 2012 post, in an act of mercy towards the older post, and in the public interest today, about 5 years and 1 month later.

Why of public interest today…

We are First 100 Days of the Trump Presidency, …



(From the introduction “far, far above”):


**Pardon the drama/elaboration, but this IS how I do view California, regardless of its geographic beauty, commendable diversity of population, and some very fine arts, music of seemingly ALL kinds (particularly jazz, classical had been my interests), theater, etc. available in its major urban areas, and some fine universities, too — not that I’m too favorable to UCBerkeley at this point!) the location of my generation-long nightmare as a woman, mother, wife of batterer I left, thereafter single mother, and before during (to the point it was safe) and after (til it was literally destroyed by the family court process of removing and discrediting what little original safety zone I had on first separating from abuse), working professional in the field I’d gotten the college degree in, and was competent and*** working, that is, producing a living, i.e., independence, in…

***EXCEPT for the repeat interruptions, disruptions, and “Case-churning” of the family/custody/divorce process with such a man (and in the context of some tribal warfare on my own side of the family as I continued to assert my intentions to exercise my legal rights as a U.S. citizen, and raise two children in the household I was literally responsible for, year-round, and year after year up until the day they were stolen and custody was switched, rewarding behavior that in this state, correctly described as to what happened in our case, consisted of a felony.

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on World Peace Forum.


    February 6, 2017 at 2:07 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Let's Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family (and/or "Conciliation") Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

iakovos alhadeff


Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

Mom & Kids Need "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: